gruffbrown

So was it Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, or Carter in your opinion?

User Name

Assuming, arguendo, that what you say is true, this cronyism does not put GW into the category, "The Worst President in History".

I understand that many of you are upset with GW and hate his guts, but the facts are, he hasn't done anything even close to what happened in Vietnam. He did not develop nuke technology, that happened under an earlier President. Cronyism does not put a President in the category, "The Worst President in History", and anyway, lots of previous Presidents could be accused of the same thing and more.

If the anti-Bush members here honestly want to rely on cronyism, it is, at best, a weak foundation, and doesn't anyway come close to putting any President in the category of, "The Worst President in History".

User Name

All had their faults. I can only point to one President and that President is President Truman. Not because I believe he was a bad President, but because imho he was one of the greatest Presidents in the 20th Century. I am a big fan of Truman, both as President Truman, and as ordinary citizen Truman, he was and I believe still is, one of the greatest American leaders of the 20th century. He was a humble man, knew many personal failures, but got above them and became a fantastic President. All the same, he did order the dropping of two nukes on civilian population centers, which ever way this is chopped up, it was a controversial decision and the jury is probably still out on that.

gruffbrown

As opposed to Churchill, arguably one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, who condoned Harris and his carpet bombing of German cities, killing more civilians than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.

anotherlimey

Of course the Japanese did attack first.... did I mention that already?

gruffbrown

Tora, Tora, Tora

gruffbrown

Which is someting Baby Bush will never be, a leader.

User Name

I don't disagree with you on that one, but your question referenced former U.S. Presidents. I agree totally with your comment that Churchill was one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century. The only difference I might have is to say he was THE greatest statesman of the 20th century.

It is my understanding that he warned and warned about Stalin, but Churchill's warnings were largely ignored - probably because folks were tired of war war. Churchill warned the west about Stalin and argued that he had to be stopped taking half of Europe, but Churchill's warnings, which proved true, were largely ignored.

User Name

I wouldn't argue with that Gruff. Neither Bush come close, baby or senior versions.

anotherlimey

So what did the Great Storm of 1953 have to do with this?

User Name

A lot has been written about this Treaty ... some of the most important polluters have ignored it. It is my understanding that China and Russia are not part of it. So even it is true that President Bush is solely responsible for not signing up the US to Kyoto, again ...

Anyway, it is Congress that has to approve a treaty, not the President. Feel free to correct me, but the last time I looked at the U.S. Constitution it is Congress that has to vote on a treaty, and Congress repeatedly said it would not vote for Kyoto. The President can't overcome Congress's designated power under the U.S. Constitution to vote on treaties. But I agree, Bush did not like Kyoto, but actually this was a moot matter as Congress was never going to vote for it. Maybe now with the new emerging pollution control technologies and system for trading pollution credits (or whatever they are called) Congress might change its mind.

User Name

I wouldn't argue that the President of the day was right to respond to Japan's attack on a military base (which at that time was not located on U.S. soil). But interning Japanese-American civilians, now recognized as a huge mistake, was not done on GW's watch. Likewise the development of the fission nuke or the later fusion nuke, and Bush did not order the decimation of two (if not three) Japanese cities. I am not saying that this was intrinsically wrong, but merely that they happened on a different President's watch. A President I happen to admire.

Likewise, GW did not order the testing of U.S. made nukes on US soil, some of which included open air testing on U.S. soil. GW did not order thousands of U.S. troops to Vietnam of whom tens of thousands died, and heaven knows how many Vietnamese civilians, some with napalm bombs. More bombs were dropped on Vietnam than in WWII (a country that did not attack America), and all under a different President. In contrast, President Bush favours Vietnam entering the WTO, and even approves the normalization of relations with Libya, a country which has given up on developing nukes (under GW's watch).

anotherlimey

It just goes to show that you can't judge history by today's standards; perhaps you need to take that into account.

gruffbrown

And produces a lot of oil.

Sally

You're young! I remember thinking the North London streets looked even messier than normal but wandered cluelessly into work as normal - only 2 of us turned up and were commended for our "superhuman effort" in attending.